A Comparative Study Between Hui Shi and Other Pre-Qin Philosophers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KEQIAN XU THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF HUI SHI’S THOUGHT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN HUI SHI AND OTHER PRE-QIN PHILOSOPHERS INTRODUCTION Hui Shi (370-3 10 B.C.?)’ was one of the main representatives of the logician school (ming jiu) in pre-Qin Era of China. However, the historical records concerning his life and thought in the early texts that we can find today are very inadequate.’ So that it is not easy to give a deep and thorough research on his thought. Consequently, most of the studies that have been conducted so far are mainly concentrated on explaining and analyzing the meanings of his famous ten paradoxes (recorded in chapter 33 of Zhuang Zi), while the general features of Hui Shi’s thought and its special position in preQin intellectual history have not yet been fully discussed. In this paper, I try to integrate some other records about Hui Shi scattered in the early texts with the ten paradoxes in my analysis, in order to give a more panoramic and well-rounded description of Hui Shi’s thought. I would also like to consider Hui Shi and his ideas in terms of general pre-Qin intellectual background, and specially to compare it to the thoughts of some representatives of other pre-Qin schools, such as Con- fucianism, Taoism, Mohism, Legalism, etc., thus to point out the unique features of Hui Shi’s thsught . 1 Hui Shi’s doctrine that we can find today are mainly the ten para- JOU~Of Chinee fiil~sOphy24 (I 997) 231 -253 Copyright 01997 by Dhlogue Publishing Company,Honolulu. Hawaii, USA. 232 KEQIAN XU doxes recorded in chapter 33 of Zhrurng Zi, entitled ”li wu zhiyi’lwhich means to study and to describe the principle of materials. Liang Qichao (1873-1929) pointed out. “Li probably has the meaning of to analyze and count. ‘Li wu zhiyi’means to analyze the general principle of mathe- matics and physic^."^ There has been a great deal of divergence among scholars who explain the meanings of the ten paradoxes. Some scholars interpret them from the scientific perspective, while others emphasize their philosophical and metaphysical meanings. In my opinion, there are certainly some philosophical implications in the ten paradoxes. However, the philosophi- cal perspective here is quite different from that in the mainstream of Chinese philosophy represented by Confucianism and Taoism. ‘“Li wu zhi yi” takes the %u” (matter, substance, material), i.e., the natural materi- al in the real world, as its object and the standing point of its theory. This is different from Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism, which take social, ethical and political issues as their main objects. Hui Shi’s ideas were criticized by the author of Zhuang Zi chapter 33 as: “trying to give explanation to all the materials”, ‘%being weak at morality, strong at material”, “scattered among the ten thousand materials and never feel tired”,. “chasing after the ten thousand materials and never know when to turn back.’d By these criticisms we get a clearer vision of the meaning of “li wu”. “Li wu”means to do general and vast research on all the materials in the real world, and to give reasonable explanations of them. This is just one of the unique features of the academic orienta- tion of Hui Shi’s thought, which is quite different from the dominant academic orientation in ancient China represented by Confucianism and Taoism. It was said that Hui Shi’s “books fied five cartl~ads”~,unfortun- ately these books have not been left to us. What were the contents of these books? Was there anyone besides or after Zhuang Zi who had ever seen these books? These problems have troubled scholars ever since the Eastern Jin dynasty (317420). Once Sima Daozi (364402) asked Xie Xuan (347-388): “In Hui Shi’s five cartloads of books, why was there not HUI SHI’S THOUGHT 233 even a single word in the realm of metaphysics?” Xi replied: “It must be that his subtler points were never transmitted.’“ Although we question if the people in the Eastern Jin dynasty still saw those “five carts of books” or not, it is quite possible that the people in that time could see much more of Hui Shi’s books than we can. The impression Sima Daozi got from Hui shi’s books was that there were no words concerning meta- physics. One reason Sima Daozi may have said this is that the academic interests of Hui Shi were not focused on metaphysics, but rather on materials. The dominant orientation in Hui Shi’s thought is to “li wu”- research the materials, “chase after materials”, “give explanation for materials”. Probably there were never any other “subtler points” in Hui Shi’s thought other than this. In pre-Qin era, there is a common trend of neglecting the study of materials in the doctrines of Confucianism, Taoism and almost all the other schools except Logicians and later-Mohism. Hui Shi was criticized for being “weak at morality, strong at material”. So we could also say that Confucianism, Taoism and some other schools are just the opposite: they are ”weak at materials, strong at morality”. This is not to say that material has never been referred to in Confucian or Taoist theories. What I want to point out here is that “material” as the objective reality, does not occupy a dominant position in these theories. It has never become the goal of their academic pursuit. In the Du Xue (Great Learning), one of the most important scriptures of pre-Qin Confucianism, “investigating materials and extending knowledge” is mentioned. However, neither “investigating material” nor “extending knowledge” is the ultimate goal of Confucianism. It is only a small link leading to the ethical and political destination in Confucian thought. Consequently, issues such as the substantial objects, contents and methods of “investigating materials and extending knowledge” have never been sufficiently displayed in pre-Qin Confucianism. Even when they were occasionally mentioned, these topics were immediately tied to social ethical and emotional problems, as seen from the passage in the Li Ji (Record on Ritual) that states: ‘When materials come you know it, 234 KEQIAN XU then your hkes and dislikes appear.”’ In general, “material’ is not the main object in the epistemology of Confucianism, so Menciw said: ‘Yao and Shun were such knowledgeable men yet they did not know all the materials ”’ In Confucianism, “knowing people” is far more important than “knowing material”. They even think that sufficient knowledge about people will spontaneously lead to sufficient knowledge about material. According to the Zhow Yong (Great Meon): “If you can exhaust the nature of people you can exhaust the nature of materials.” As a result, “material’.’ seems not necessary to be treated as an independent goal of knowledge in Confucian epistemology. ‘Material” is the object of utilization rather thaR that of knowledge in Confucianism. What the Confucian emphasized is the usefulness of material. as is said in the Li ji: “get the material and let it be used, thus to establish the people’s principle.” When Confucian philosophers mention “to know material” in their works, they usually mean “to use material”. This orientation is typically shown in Xunzi’s saying: -Toregard the sky as great and admire it, is not as good as to control it and make use of it.’r9 So if some materials are useless, then there is no need to know it. Ilke Confucianism, Taoism also shows an obvious inclination to neglect material. In the Taoist opinion, “materials are not worth doing.”1o They advocate: ’Do not have commerce with materials””, ‘forget materials””. They consider internal spirit much more important than external material. Zhuang Zi said: “Be cautious of what is within you, block out what is outside you, for much knowledge will do you harm.’”; So people not only don’t have to know material, they even have to avoid knowing it. Because from the Taoist skeptical viewpoint, “Ex- ternal material can never be counted on”, and the knowledge about materials will never be correct, as Zhuang Zi said in Qi wu lun: ‘No material is not ‘that , no material is not this’.’’ What is ’this’is also that, what is ’that’ is also ’this’ ’‘I‘ Therefore, pursuing knowledge about outside material can do nothing good to you but hurt your internal spirit. “Material’ does have a position in Taoist theory, as it should be. HUI SHI’S THOUGHT 235 Taoist philosophers frequently mentioned “Wu” (material) in their works. However, they usually consider materd as the utility for self cultivation rather than the object of knowledge. They advocate: “Following along with material and become nature””, ‘Treat material as material but do not be materialized by material.I6” What does ‘Treat material as materi- al” mean? Zhuang Zi said: ‘Those who treat material as material are not different from material.”” That is to say ego and material mix together, heaven and human combine to be “one”. In other words, the epistemolo- gical problem of subject and object no longer exists. Therefore, according to Taoist opinion, it is not necessary to ”chase after material”, or “research on material”, because the subject (ego) itself is already object (material). In contrast with Confucianism and Taoism, Hui Shi represents quite a different academic orientation. The content of “li wu zhi yi”, as analyzed by some scholars, did involve certain knowledge that we shourd put under the catalogue of the so called natural sciences, such as physics, astronomy, geography, geometry etc. Although it is difficult to conclude Hui Shi’s general opinion in these ten paradoxes, it is easy to note what he didn’t say in them.